(no title)
nsl73 | 5 years ago
Fusion would provide (much) more energy, use (much) less radioactive inputs, and produce (much) less radioactive outputs. Fusion is significantly safer. In a failure mode the fusion reaction will lose containment and die out like a fire without oxygen. Fission rods will continue to produce heat & radiation in a failure mode, and all failure modes of a fission power plant need to account for this.
I’m actually pro fission, because the risks of fission are lower than the risks of coal, oil, and natural gas. Yes, the article was hyperbolic. However, you’re under-hyping the advancement of fusion. When fusion comes it will be politically palpable globally, cleaner than fission, and it will reduce the cost of energy significantly.
sandworm101|5 years ago
regularfry|5 years ago
The thing about a fusion plant is that there likely won't be that many people on site. Failure modes for the most part ought to look like conventional explosions, which we largely know how to mitigate where they're likely.
What worries me, with the sequence of plants, starting with ITER and DEMO, is that because of the scaling laws that seem to be involved, we're heading towards very few gigantic generators, where they're each responsible for such a large proportion of the power supply that we couldn't cope with any one of them going offline. The immediate power loss itself could be responsible for loss of life.
fastball|5 years ago
Not all fission designs require solid fuel rods, e.g. LFTR, which coincidentally has a failure mode that is much safer than solid fuel fission reactors.